On 07.06.2015 20:42, Georg Lukas wrote: > 3) Create a MID generation scheme that can be independently followed by > client and server, i.e. full-jid + stream-id + packet-id.
I'd don't think we'll need the full-jid. The properties of the stream-id are sufficient to generate a unique, collision free MID by concatenating it with the stanza-id. We may not be able to use the stream-id though, because of the RFC requirement that it has to be kept secret. Thus requiring us to introduce a new public-stream-id which has the same properties as the stream-id, but without the 'secret' requirement. > This scheme is > very similar to #2, but the client has less options to game it, and I > don't see significant benefits over #2. "Less options to game it" is not a significant benefit? Also not requiring UUIDs as stanza-id is also a big plus: A dump client can still generate stanza-ids using a simple counter and still participate. > I think these options need to be weighted and one of them chosen before > we can proceed with the MID XEP. I'm all for 3. It solves the "how can a client know the MAM archive ID in advance" problem in an elegant and efficient way. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
